I'm trying to infer parameters of a stochastic dynamical system using pymc3. I have a theano expression that seems to come together without errors, but I can't seem to compile it, which I was hoping to do in order to generate toy data for fitting. My model is
dx/dt = ax(t) - x(t)^3 + epsilon (i.e. epsilon is some state noise)
epsilon ~ Normal(0, sigma^2)
The plan is to set up epsilon, sigma, and a with prior distributions in pymc3 and use theano.scan to integrate the differential equation. I then need to generate some data, which I figure I can do by compiling the output of scan into a python function which I would run with fixed values for sigma, a, and x(0). Here's where I'm at so far:
import theano.tensor as T
import theano
import pymc3 as mc
with mc.Model() as model:
# Time-related variables for performing the integration
dt = T.fscalar('dt')
tau = T.fscalar('tau')
steps = T.cast(tau / dt, 'int32')
x = mc.Uniform('x', lower=-10, upper=10)
a = mc.Gamma('a', 1, 1)
sigma = mc.Gamma('sigma', mu=1, sd=1)
epsilon = mc.Normal('epsilon', mu=0, sd=sig_s)
# Symbolic loop through Euler updates
xout, updates = theano.scan(fn=lambda x, sigma, a, dt: x + dt * (a * x - x**3) + T.sqrt(dt) * epsilon,
outputs_info=x,
non_sequences=[sigma, a, dt],
n_steps=steps)
simulation = theano.function(inputs=[x, sigma, a, dt, tau],
outputs=xout,
updates=updates,
allow_input_downcast=True)
The last line gives me
MissingInputError: ("An input of the graph, used to compute for{cpu,scan_fn}(Elemwise{Cast{int32}}.0, IncSubtensor{Set;:int64:}.0, sigma, a, dt, epsilon), was not provided and not given a value.Use the Theano flag exception_verbosity='high',for more information on this error.", epsilon)
(the verbosity flag does nothing).
One thing I am not sure of is how pymc3 random variables work inside scan. If I provide a value for sigma, will epsilon draw a new random value at each iteration of the loop? Do I need to give epsilon a size?
Related
trying to implement custom MLE for binomial distribution (for learning purpose) stuck with implantation of binomial coefficient in google JAX . there is no analog for scipy.special.binom() implemented.
what shall i use instead ?
The binomial coefficient for general real-valued inputs can be computed in terms of the gamma function, which is available in JAX via jax.scipy.special.gammaln. Here's one way you could define it:
def binom(x, y):
return jnp.exp(gammaln(x + 1) - gammaln(y + 1) - gammaln(x - y + 1))
Here is a (sequential) integer implementation using JAX.
def binom_int_seq(x : int, y : int):
def scan_body(carry, values):
n, d = values
carry = (carry*n)//d
return carry, None
y = max(y, x-y)
nd = jnp.concatenate(
(jnp.arange(y+2, x+1, dtype = 'u8')[:,None],
jnp.arange(2, x-y+1, dtype = 'u8')[:,None],),
axis = 1
)
bc, *_ = jax.lax.scan(scan_body, jnp.array(y+1, dtype = 'u8'), nd)
return bc
binom_int_seq_jit = jax.jit(binom_int_seq, static_argnums = (0, 1))
which gives
x, y = 60, 31
bc_ref = sp.special.comb(x, y, exact=True)
# 114449595062769120
binom_int_seq(x, y)-bc_ref
# DeviceArray(0, dtype=uint64)
# Using above logarithmic gamma function based implementation
binom(x, y)-bc_ref
# DeviceArray(496., dtype=float64, weak_type=True)
Keep in mind the binom_int_seq implementation is only correct if
(x-max(x-y, y))*sp.special.comb(x, y, exact=True) < jnp.iinfo(jnp.uint64).max
Unlike the real-valued version, the error will be sudden and catastrophic if this condition is not satisfied.
There may be other ways to increase this constraint, such as running cancellations based upon prime factorisation, without resorting to larger unsigned integers (/arbitrary precision).
A monoidal version could be implemented which computes the binomial coefficient numerator and denominator reductions then integer divides, but this places stricter constraints on the maximum arguments.
I tried using Numpy, Scipy and Scikitlearn, but couldn't find what I need in any of them, basically I need to fit a curve to a dataset, but restricting some of the coefficients to known values, I found how to do it in MATLAB, using fittype, but couldn't do it in python.
In my case I have a dataset of X and Y and I need to find the best fitting curve, I know it's a polynomial of second degree (ax^2 + bx + c) and I know it's values of b and c, so I just needed it to find the value of a.
The solution I found in MATLAB was https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/216688-constraining-polyfit-with-known-coefficients which is the same problem as mine, but with the difference that their polynomial was of degree 5th, how could I do something similar in python?
To add some info: I need to fit a curve to a dataset, so things like scipy.optimize.curve_fit that expects a function won't work (at least as far as I tried).
The tools you have available usually expect functions only inputting their parameters (a being the only unknown in your case), or inputting their parameters and some data (a, x, and y in your case).
Scipy's curve-fit handles that use-case just fine, so long as we hand it a function that it understands. It expects x first and all your parameters as the remaining arguments:
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
import numpy as np
b = 0
c = 0
def f(x, a):
return c+x*(b+x*a)
x = np.linspace(-5, 5)
y = x**2
# params == [1.]
params, _ = curve_fit(f, x, y)
Alternatively you can reach for your favorite minimization routine. The difference here is that you manually construct the error function so that it only inputs the parameters you care about, and then you don't need to provide that data to scipy.
from scipy.optimize import minimize
import numpy as np
b = 0
c = 0
x = np.linspace(-5, 5)
y = x**2
def error(a):
prediction = c+x*(b+x*a)
return np.linalg.norm(prediction-y)/len(prediction)**.5
result = minimize(error, np.array([42.]))
assert result.success
# params == [1.]
params = result.x
I don't think scipy has a partially applied polynomial fit function built-in, but you could use either of the above ideas to easily build one yourself if you do that kind of thing a lot.
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
import numpy as np
def polyfit(coefs, x, y):
# build a mapping from null coefficient locations to locations in the function
# coefficients we're passing to curve_fit
#
# idx[j]==i means that unknown_coefs[i] belongs in coefs[j]
_tmp = [i for i,c in enumerate(coefs) if c is None]
idx = {j:i for i,j in enumerate(_tmp)}
def f(x, *unknown_coefs):
# create the entire polynomial's coefficients by filling in the unknown
# values in the right places, using the aforementioned mapping
p = [(unknown_coefs[idx[i]] if c is None else c) for i,c in enumerate(coefs)]
return np.polyval(p, x)
# we're passing an initial value just so that scipy knows how many parameters
# to use
params, _ = curve_fit(f, x, y, np.zeros((sum(c is None for c in coefs),)))
# return all the polynomial's coefficients, not just the few we just discovered
return np.array([(params[idx[i]] if c is None else c) for i,c in enumerate(coefs)])
x = np.linspace(-5, 5)
y = x**2
# (unknown)x^2 + 1x + 0
# params == [1, 0, 0.]
params = fit([None, 0, 0], x, y)
Similar features exist in nearly every mainstream scientific library; you just might need to reshape your problem a bit to frame it in terms of the available primitives.
I created a linear regression algorithm following a tutorial and applied it to the data-set provided and it works fine. However the same algorithm does not work on another similar data-set. Can somebody tell me why this happens?
def computeCost(X, y, theta):
inner = np.power(((X * theta.T) - y), 2)
return np.sum(inner) / (2 * len(X))
def gradientDescent(X, y, theta, alpha, iters):
temp = np.matrix(np.zeros(theta.shape))
params = int(theta.ravel().shape[1])
cost = np.zeros(iters)
for i in range(iters):
err = (X * theta.T) - y
for j in range(params):
term = np.multiply(err, X[:,j])
temp[0, j] = theta[0, j] - ((alpha / len(X)) * np.sum(term))
theta = temp
cost[i] = computeCost(X, y, theta)
return theta, cost
alpha = 0.01
iters = 1000
g, cost = gradientDescent(X, y, theta, alpha, iters)
print(g)
On running the algo through this dataset I get the output as matrix([[ nan, nan]]) and the following errors:
C:\Anaconda3\lib\site-packages\ipykernel\__main__.py:2: RuntimeWarning: overflow encountered in power
from ipykernel import kernelapp as app
C:\Anaconda3\lib\site-packages\ipykernel\__main__.py:11: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in double_scalars
However this data set works just fine and outputs matrix([[-3.24140214, 1.1272942 ]])
Both the datasets are similar, I have been over it many times but can't seem to figure out why it works on one dataset but not on other. Any help is welcome.
Edit: Thanks Mark_M for editing tips :-)
[Much better question, btw]
It's hard to know exactly what's going on here, but basically your cost is going the wrong direction and spiraling out of control, which results in an overflow when you try to square the value.
I think in your case it boils down to your step size (alpha) being too big which can cause gradient descent to go the wrong way. You need to watch the cost in gradient descent and makes sure it's always going down, if it's not either something is broken or alpha is to large.
Personally, I would reevaluate the code and try to get rid of the loops. It's a matter of preference, but I find it easier to work with X and Y as column vectors. Here is a minimal example:
from numpy import genfromtxt
# this is your 'bad' data set from github
my_data = genfromtxt('testdata.csv', delimiter=',')
def computeCost(X, y, theta):
inner = np.power(((X # theta.T) - y), 2)
return np.sum(inner) / (2 * len(X))
def gradientDescent(X, y, theta, alpha, iters):
for i in range(iters):
# you don't need the extra loop - this can be vectorize
# making it much faster and simpler
theta = theta - (alpha/len(X)) * np.sum((X # theta.T - y) * X, axis=0)
cost = computeCost(X, y, theta)
if i % 10 == 0: # just look at cost every ten loops for debugging
print(cost)
return (theta, cost)
# notice small alpha value
alpha = 0.0001
iters = 100
# here x is columns
X = my_data[:, 0].reshape(-1,1)
ones = np.ones([X.shape[0], 1])
X = np.hstack([ones, X])
# theta is a row vector
theta = np.array([[1.0, 1.0]])
# y is a columns vector
y = my_data[:, 1].reshape(-1,1)
g, cost = gradientDescent(X, y, theta, alpha, iters)
print(g, cost)
Another useful technique is to normalize your data before doing regression. This is especially useful when you have more than one feature you're trying to minimize.
As a side note - if you're step size is right you shouldn't get overflows no matter how many iterations you do because the cost will will decrease with every iteration and the rate of decrease will slow.
After 1000 iterations I arrived at a theta and cost of:
[[ 1.03533399 1.45914293]] 56.041973778
after 100:
[[ 1.01166889 1.45960806]] 56.0481988054
You can use this to look at the fit in an iPython notebook:
%matplotlib inline
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.scatter(my_data[:, 0].reshape(-1,1), y)
axes = plt.gca()
x_vals = np.array(axes.get_xlim())
y_vals = g[0][0] + g[0][1]* x_vals
plt.plot(x_vals, y_vals, '--')
I have a problem fitting with LinearRegressionWithSGD in Spark's MLlib. I used their example for fitting from here https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/mllib-linear-methods.html (using Python interface).
In their example all features are almost scaled with mean around 0 and standard deviation around 1. Now if I un-scale one of them by a factor of 10, the regression breaks (gives nans or very large coefficients):
from pyspark.mllib.regression import LabeledPoint, LinearRegressionWithSGD
from numpy import array
# Load and parse the data
def parsePoint(line):
values = [float(x) for x in line.replace(',', ' ').split(' ')]
# UN-SCALE one of the features by a factor of 10
values[3] *= 10
return LabeledPoint(values[0], values[1:])
data = sc.textFile(spark_home+"data/mllib/ridge-data/lpsa.data")
parsedData = data.map(parsePoint)
# Build the model
model = LinearRegressionWithSGD.train(parsedData)
# Evaluate the model on training data
valuesAndPreds = parsedData.map(lambda p: (p.label, model.predict(p.features)))
MSE = valuesAndPreds.map(lambda (v, p): (v - p)**2).reduce(lambda x, y: x + y) / valuesAndPreds.count()
print("Mean Squared Error = " + str(MSE))
print "Model coefficients:", str(model)
So, I guess I need to do the feature scaling. If I do pre-scaling it works (because I'm back at scaled features). However now I don't know how to get coefficients in the original space.
from pyspark.mllib.regression import LabeledPoint, LinearRegressionWithSGD
from numpy import array
from pyspark.mllib.feature import StandardScaler
from pyspark.mllib.feature import StandardScalerModel
# Load and parse the data
def parseToDenseVector(line):
values = [float(x) for x in line.replace(',', ' ').split(' ')]
# UN-SCALE one of the features by a factor of 10
values[3] *= 10
return Vectors.dense(values[0:])
# Load and parse the data
def parseToLabel(values):
return LabeledPoint(values[0], values[1:])
data = sc.textFile(spark_home+"data/mllib/ridge-data/lpsa.data")
parsedData = data.map(parseToDenseVector)
scaler = StandardScaler(True, True)
scaler_model = scaler.fit(parsedData)
parsedData_scaled = scaler_model.transform(parsedData)
parsedData_scaled_transformed = parsedData_scaled.map(parseToLabel)
# Build the model
model = LinearRegressionWithSGD.train(parsedData_scaled_transformed)
# Evaluate the model on training data
valuesAndPreds = parsedData_scaled_transformed.map(lambda p: (p.label, model.predict(p.features)))
MSE = valuesAndPreds.map(lambda (v, p): (v - p)**2).reduce(lambda x, y: x + y) / valuesAndPreds.count()
print("Mean Squared Error = " + str(MSE))
print "Model coefficients:", str(model)
So, here I have all the coefficients in the transformed space. Now how do I get to the original space? I also have scaler_model which is StandardScalerModel object. But I can't get neither means or variances out of it. The only public method that this class has is transform which can transform points from original space to transform. But I can't get it reverse.
I just ran into this problem. The models cannot even learn f(x) = x if x is high (>3) in the training data. So terrible.
I think rather than scaling the data another option is to change the step size. This is discussed in SPARK-1859. To paraphrase from there:
The step size should be smaller than 1 over the Lipschitz constant L.
For quadratic loss and GD, the best convergence happens at stepSize = 1/(2L). Spark has a (1/n) multiplier on the loss function.
Let's say you have n = 5 data points and the largest feature value is 1500. So L = 1500 * 1500 / 5. The best convergence happens at stepSize = 1/(2L) = 10 / (1500 ^ 2).
The last equality doesn't even make sense (how did we get a 2 in the numerator?) but I've never heard of a Lipschitz constant before, so I am not qualified to fix it. Anyway I think we can just try different step sizes until it starts to work.
To rephrase your question, you want to find the intercept I and coefficients C_1 and C_2 that solve the equation: Y = I + C_1 * x_1 + C_2 * x_2 (where x_1 and x_2 are unscaled).
Let i be the intercept that mllib returns. Likewise let c_1 and c_2 be the coefficients (or weights) that mllib returns.
Let m_1 be the unscaled mean of x_1 and m_2 be the unscaled mean of x_2.
Let s_1 be the unscaled standard deviation of x_1 and s_2 be the unscaled standard deviation of x_2.
Then C_1 = (c_1 / s_1), C_2 = (c_2 / s_2), and
I = i - c_1 * m_1 / s_1 - c_2 * m_2 / s_2
This can easily be extended to 3 input variables:
C_3 = (c_3 / s_3) and I = i - c_1 * m_1 / s_1 - c_2 * m_2 / s_2 - c_3 * m_3 / s_3
As you pointed out StandardScalerModel object in pyspark doesn't expose std and mean attributes. There is an issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-6523
You can easily calculate them yourself
import numpy as np
from pyspark.mllib.stat import Statistics
summary = Statistics.colStats(features)
mean = summary.mean()
std = np.sqrt(features.variance())
These are the same mean and std that your Scaler uses. You can verify this using python magic dict
print scaler_model.__dict__.get('_java_model').std()
print scaler_model.__dict__.get('_java_model').mean()
i tried to do a LR with SKLearn for a rather large dataset with ~600 dummy and only few interval variables (and 300 K lines in my dataset) and the resulting confusion matrix looks suspicious. I wanted to check the significance of the returned coefficients and ANOVA but I cannot find how to access it. Is it possible at all? And what is the best strategy for data that contains lots of dummy variables? Thanks a lot!
Scikit-learn deliberately does not support statistical inference. If you want out-of-the-box coefficients significance tests (and much more), you can use Logit estimator from Statsmodels. This package mimics interface glm models in R, so you could find it familiar.
If you still want to stick to scikit-learn LogisticRegression, you can use asymtotic approximation to distribution of maximum likelihiood estimates. Precisely, for a vector of maximum likelihood estimates theta, its variance-covariance matrix can be estimated as inverse(H), where H is the Hessian matrix of log-likelihood at theta. This is exactly what the function below does:
import numpy as np
from scipy.stats import norm
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
def logit_pvalue(model, x):
""" Calculate z-scores for scikit-learn LogisticRegression.
parameters:
model: fitted sklearn.linear_model.LogisticRegression with intercept and large C
x: matrix on which the model was fit
This function uses asymtptics for maximum likelihood estimates.
"""
p = model.predict_proba(x)
n = len(p)
m = len(model.coef_[0]) + 1
coefs = np.concatenate([model.intercept_, model.coef_[0]])
x_full = np.matrix(np.insert(np.array(x), 0, 1, axis = 1))
ans = np.zeros((m, m))
for i in range(n):
ans = ans + np.dot(np.transpose(x_full[i, :]), x_full[i, :]) * p[i,1] * p[i, 0]
vcov = np.linalg.inv(np.matrix(ans))
se = np.sqrt(np.diag(vcov))
t = coefs/se
p = (1 - norm.cdf(abs(t))) * 2
return p
# test p-values
x = np.arange(10)[:, np.newaxis]
y = np.array([0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1])
model = LogisticRegression(C=1e30).fit(x, y)
print(logit_pvalue(model, x))
# compare with statsmodels
import statsmodels.api as sm
sm_model = sm.Logit(y, sm.add_constant(x)).fit(disp=0)
print(sm_model.pvalues)
sm_model.summary()
The outputs of print() are identical, and they happen to be coefficient p-values.
[ 0.11413093 0.08779978]
[ 0.11413093 0.08779979]
sm_model.summary() also prints a nicely formatted HTML summary.